The U.S. Government filed a brief arguing that any person designated an “enemy combatant” by the government has no legal right to legal representation and can be held indefinitely without a hearing and without charges, even if the 'enemy combatant is a U.S. citizen.
Currently, there are two U.S. citizens to whom the U.S. seeks to apply this doctrine. One of them, Yaser Esam Hamdi, is a Saudi captured in Afganistan. He is a U.S. citizen essentially by accident, having been born in the U.S. but having lived his entire life in Saudi Arabia. The second is Jose Padilla. Jose Padilla spent his entire life in the U.S. but converted to Islam while in prison. The U.S. has alleged he was attempting to build a “dirty” bomb but has refused to charge him or present evidence. He was declared an “enemy combatant” and transferred to military custody when a federal judge indicated that the government had better charge him or cut him loose.
John Walker Lindh, while also an “enemy combatant” has been treated like any other criminal defendant.
In my opinion, this is completely outrageous. If the U.S. government want to charge a U.S. citizen with treason, that’s fine. However, allowing the government to create a precedent for holding a U.S. citizen indefinitely without access to a court or an attorney is infinitely more dangerous than any number of terrorist organizations. Has the U.S. government already forgotten the Japanese internments?
The U.S. political and judicial system is built on a system of checks and balances. The idea of allowing the government to simply declare some particular person beyond that bounds of those protections is deeply chilling. What’s worse, the government’s theory is that the military has this authority.
**
I know it’s incredibly trite to say, “if we allow X, the terrorists have already won.” But if one attack results in the short-circuiting of the entire system of constitutional protections in the U.S., perhaps they have.
Good post. I definitely agree. I’d say we lose whenever our constitutional rights are infringed upon. If the US is so confident that these people are “combatants,” I do not see the problem in allowing them to have representation and have a fair and speedy trial. If you have a good case, why not go to trial and get him behind bars? If you don’t have a good case, why have you arrested him/them?
Just to play devils advocate, what happens if one of these “enemy combatants” is released for lack of evidence and then denonates a nuclear bomb in downtown Chicago?
I am not an expert on all things Ashcroft. But one thing he said made sense. Our legal system is designed to apprehend and prosecute people AFTER they commit a crime. It isn’t designed to deal with suicidal criminals delivering weapons of mass destruction.
It shouldn’t matter if you’re accused of killing every single person on earth. If you’re a U.S. citizen, you should get a trial, period.
It’s very frustrating to say these things nowadays, with a lot of hypocritical “patriots” accusing those who do say them of treason. How demanding that the Constitution be followed to the letter is treasonous is beyond me.
I hate to sound paranoid, but I honestly think this could be the first step in the Bush administration chipping away at the rights of the accused. What can stop them from declaring that, say, robbing a bank is an act of terrorism, the people arrested are therefore “military combatants”, and since precedent has been set with the Padilla case, they can toss them in a cell somewhere and lose the key without that tedious business of “trials” and “witnesses” and “juries”?
Terrorists have absolutely no rights whatsoever under any law, US or international. Treason is hard to prove, what is more likely (Rosenburgs were executed for Espionage, not Treason) that a lesser charge that will ‘stick’ is used. It’s also very prudent to keep these jokers out of the “normal” judicial system as it has proved time and again ineffective and very “leaky” from a national security standpoint. Crooked lawyers don’t help, either. Treating the first WTC bombing as criminal matter is what got us into this mess in the first place.
Frankly I don’t see what the problem is. As an enemy combatant, they could/should be shot on the spot. Being locked up, even indefinitely, is probably superior than that. They have intelligence value, so we are keeping them alive at least. All the human “rights” people (strangely silent on 9/12, what about the poor people who were roasted in their offices, only to find relief by jumping from 90 stories? I watched this live on TV, it took around 8 to 10 seconds of free falling)
FDR and then governor Earl Warren of California are largely responsible for the japanese internment. Post 9/11 you should be able to figure out why they did that. No, it wasn’t “right” but it sure was tactically sound. Would that we had “liberals” with balls like that today, sadly they are extinct.
Just to play devil’s advocate, I have it on good authority that msmith537 is planning to detonate a nuclear bomb in downtown Chicago. Since I have now informed our Infallible Leaders of this fact, he has been arrested and is now to be imprisoned indefinitely. No evidence of his crime can be revealed, and no other entity may interfere with his perpetual detention.
Us silly Europeans, spending years negotiating a trial for the Lockerbie bombers when we could have asked you for a simple legal precedent. :smack:
Yes, fancy letting all those innocent people go free. Much safer to lock them up. :rolleyes:
I expect you were one of those who called for Muslims to be punished for that outrage. Then the judicial system you despise showed it was a white American…
I suppose that enemies of the US who define American civilians as enemy combatants could benefit from this well-thought out doctrine of yours. :wally
Tell me about it. Everybody knows all those children with Japanese grandparents were planning to infiltrate U.S. bases while wearing their Li’l Kamakaze[sup]TM[/sup] Dynamite Kits.
Do you think we should have locked up every militia member after Timothy McVeigh was arrested? Better safe than sorry, right?
Minty, Thank goodness you caught him in time! :eek:
mssmith537 Two points.
If there is a complete “lack of evidence,” he shouldn’t have been arrested in the first place. A “lack of evidence” means that the U.S. government does not have a good reason to believe that he is actually a terrorist. If the U.S. government does not have a good reason to believe someone is a terrorist, then it would be monstrous to keep him or her locked up just because some military officer or civilian prosecutor has a “hunch.” The more troubling case is where the government does have evidence but need to protect their sources, e.g. an agent inside a terrorist organization. This, however, shouldn’t be that novel of a situation. There are ways to address the government’s concerns short of denying the accused (who is innocent until proven guilty – remember that?) even the barest hint of due process.
Just because the government can’t hold someone incommunicado idefinitely without a hearing doesn’t mean the alternative is to do nothing. If the government is convinced someone is a terrorist, follow them around, gather evidence, investigate.
let’s all remember when we all ‘knew’ Richard Jewell was the Olympic bomber, then the FBI ended up having to publically admit, well, no, he wasn’t.
not to mention people who’ve had criminal trials, found guilty and have had their convictions overturned 'cause they were actually innocent (reference the Innocence project).
So, no, I’m really not at all comfortable about one branch of our government deciding that the Constitution and Bill of Rights can be tossed out when they ‘know’ some one is a bad guy.
And there lies the rub. How does an Intelligence community at (turf) war with itself say to a politician; “Actually, in our experience it would be a much better thing for the country if we followed this guy around for awhile in order to try and discover who he may hook up with. And maybe even gather a little evidence.” when it’s politically expedient to arrest the individual the moment they return to the US. Bush had them over a barrel because of the turf war.
That notwithstanding, party political imperatives have no place in pragmatic Intelligence matters. IMHO, Bush interfered with operational standard practice for his own short-term ends and that, ultimately, may not be in the national interest.
London_Calling - There are obviously laws already on the books against planning crimes. I’m talking about the way our law enforcement agencies investigate and solve crimes and punish criminals. It doesn’t do any good to figure out who hijacked the airplanes after they crashed into their targets. Figure out a way to find out who the criminals are before they commit the crimes without violating anyones rights and we’ll all be happy.
Truth Seeker - 2) As you probably know, the CIA was following two of the suspected 9/11 terrorists before 9/11. We definitely two things 1) better cooperation between the law enforcement and intel agencies and 2) a better way to sift through all that intel data (I heard a typical listening post receives 2 million peices of data an HOUR).
That said, what would we be able to do to the suspected terrorists under existing law had we picked them up?
No need to deport, wring. Just pick 'em up, hold 'em on their myriad visa violations, investigate the plot, and charge 'em with conspiracy to do a whole host of things that would result in them never again seeeing the outside of a SuperMax detention facility.
I imagine it looks like the inside of a cave or the closet of a crappy apartment in Jalalabad. Open democracy may look messy to us, but it’s damn well effective against these losers.
jayjay that response was in reply to the posting about “gee, we had certain of those hijackers under watch/whatever before 9/11, what could we have done…” to which my answer is keep 'em out of the country, but of course, minty goes one better.
WRT those who are citizens, charge 'em w/a crime or let them go. IT’s done every single day in this country. If you don’t have evidence sufficient to hold them in custody (keeping in mind that the threashold for being held for trial is substantially less than it is for conviction), you must not detain them. THE FF thought that they protected our citizens from the government detaining w/o trial.